


Shots in The Dark: Alternatives to Smirke's Fourteen

by Karartegirl99



Category: The Magnus Archives (Podcast)
Genre: Academia, How Do I Tag, Meta, The Fear Entities, in-universe
Language: English
Status: In-Progress
Published: 2020-09-29
Updated: 2020-11-05
Packaged: 2021-03-08 04:33:36
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 6
Words: 2,560
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/26719852
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/Karartegirl99/pseuds/Karartegirl99
Summary: Abstract: A brief consideration of Smirke's model of The Fears and its impact on interpretations of the supernatural, and an outline of some notable alternative models which have been proposed.
Comments: 13
Kudos: 27





	1. Introduction

It is absurd to suggest that there is such a thing as orthodoxy when it comes to the supernatural. For one thing, the common public has no supernatural experience, and so is free to theorize about everything from auras to zodiac signs. Even among those who are intimately familiar with the paranormal, there is a wide variety of perspectives. Some try, often in vain, to fit what they know into an existing science or religion. Many others are content to serve their power with little care as to what it is they’re doing or how they are doing it. But despite a lack of consensus, the work of Robert Smirke is often recognized as a major influence in the field. Smirke was one of the first to draw the link between fear and the supernatural, and his taxonomy of the Fears serves as a foundation for many modern temples. But just as the study of physics has gradually moved away from the five elements, the study of paraphysics cannot be neatly contained by the fourteen Fears that Smirke originally proposed. There are countless other theories, as many as there are humans and monsters to theorize. This paper will give a brief overview of some common ways to understand that which is not meant to be understood.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> somewhere in the afterlife, Robert Smirke has gotten the weirdest @ alert


	2. Fear Itself

It’s fairly common nowadays for Smirke’s taxonomy to be a person’s first framework for the supernatural. Humans are fond of neat categories, and once given a list of them, we are loath to let go. But it is important to remember that understanding the supernatural is more than naming different Fears. To get bogged down in semantics is to forget that any categories we come up with are entirely subjective. Smirke himself compares it to the concept of color; the human eye can see a spectrum of shades, but different languages, and, in fact, different people, will name those colors differently. Because of this, not every school of thought focuses on sorting fears, as Smirke’s does, and it’s important to bear this in mind.

One of the oldest views is that the supernatural should be taken on a case-by-case basis. Ancient humans did not put as much thought into drawing connections between different sorts of phenomena. A blood-sucker was a blood-sucker. It did not matter where they came from, or whether they generated the same kind of fear as a werewolf or a meat construct. Today, this opinion is most common among servants of the Fears. A Desolation cultist might look at a similar manifestation and see, not a kindred spirit or a distant cousin, but just a different type of being competing for the same food source.

On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly popular to view all supernatural phenomena as the same. Proponents of this view will speak not of Fears, but of a singular Fear that takes many forms. In practice, this doesn’t look much different from treating every manifestation as completely unique.

Let us pretend, for the sake of simplicity, that the supernatural can be classified into discrete entities, as Smirke believed. How, then, should we perceive such entities? Are they sapient, or even sentient? Are they sleeping giants in a pocket dimension beneath our own, or are they invisible forces that warp reality around them? Even amongst those who fully believe in Smirke’s taxonomy, there is much contention on this matter. Some common views are outlined below.

_The Pantheon_

Humans are disposed to anthropomorphize. If we encounter a force we don’t understand, we tend to ascribe it agency, even if we don’t realize we’re doing it. This is why many treat the Fear Entities as gods. Words used to describe religious practice have their place in the supernatural; humans with supernatural abilities are called warlocks, avatars, or servants, and groups of like-minded individuals will often form cults or temples. Even when The Fears aren’t worshipped outright, they still inspire awe, and people tend to speak of them as if they were sapient (The Corruption “wants” to spread, The Spiral is “fond of” a given person, The Beholding “dislikes” The Dark). It is often easier to give an Entity a personality rather than accept that something unthinking could have so much control over our lives.

_The “Lovecraftian” Perspective_

In recent times, due to the decline of religion and the advent of science fiction, many people consider The Fears to be more like alien creatures. It’s clear enough that the Entities don’t think and feel as humans do, so it makes sense to compare them to animals. Like the eldritch abominations in pulp horror, the Fears seem to want little more than to grow in strength and glut themselves. From this perspective, they do what they do not out of malice, but out of parasitic hunger. The Entities have effectively “domesticated” the beings that serve them, caring about us only to the extent that we can bring them power. They don’t think long-term, and they might not even be aware that they’re hurting us. They are simply a step up on the food chain.

_Fear as a force of nature_

Since the Entities come from fear, it stands to reason that, like fear itself, they don’t want, think, or act at all. They are simply the natural side effect of animal existence, much like gravity is the side effect of matter. Many who view the Fears this way will speak of them not as Entities, but as natural wells of power that can be harnessed and controlled. However, this theory has trouble explaining certain aspects of Fear, such as the reluctance to let a servant return to mundanity.

However you choose to characterize the Entities, their existence, in some form, is a given in virtually any model of the supernatural. The true point of contention lies in which fears, and how many, are deserving of a place at the table. There are several schools of thought today that classify Fears quite differently from where Smirke first drew the lines. There are also several models that are basically Smirke’s Fourteen with different names, but we won’t be looking at those here.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> I'm trying to decide if and where I should write about Angus Stacey. Any thoughts?


	3. Alternative One: Usher’s Loss-based Taxonomy

A major criticism of Smirke’s Fourteen is its tendency to group abstract fears under the same titles as concrete ones. The biggest offender of this is perhaps The Vast, which is simultaneously the fear of open spaces and the fear of one’s cosmic insignificance.

In 1841, Rita Francis Usher endeavored to correct this by creating a taxonomy that would ignore concrete fear entirely. Usher’s reasoning was that every concrete fear has an abstract reason behind it. We are afraid of open spaces not because they are inherently frightening, but because we are afraid of being small, or of being lost, or of being alone. All fear, Usher posits, boils down to an instinctive fear of loss. Hence, her list consists of three types of loss, each with different “flavors” to further narrow it down.

_Loss of Self_

This category includes the fears of losing one’s _agency_ , _sanity_ , and _identity_ , which can be said to correspond with The Web, The Spiral, and The Stranger, respectively. Of course, it’s not one to one. The loss of sanity and identity also includes the existential horror of The Vast, as well as the mental side effects from long-term exposure to The Lonely or The Slaughter. Usher is also careful to specify that Loss of Self includes “that dread that one has lost something, or worse, is losing something, that is integral to one’s humanity.” Usher was writing at a time when she was still coming to terms with her Becoming, and in one of her letters from this period she wrote, “There is nothing that scares me more than the thought that I might one day be unrepentantly evil.” This is an experience that many scholars of the supernatural are familiar with, and its acknowledgement as a Fear is one of the appeals of Usher’s taxonomy.

_Loss of Well-being_

The subcategories here are loss of _life_ , loss of _health_ , and loss of _comfort._ Unlike Smirke, Usher does not differentiate between the existential fear of death and the fear of dying. By her reckoning, a clock that tells you when you’ll die falls under the same category as a monster that eats human flesh. There is a bit more nuance when it comes to health and comfort, though. Usher considers loss of health to be a permanent impairment, whereas loss of comfort is more the fear of the pain itself.

_Loss of Home_

This category includes loss of _security_ and loss of _friends._ The former can be anything from the stress of being hunted to the terror of an unknown threat. The latter includes both losing friends in the sense that they Forsake you, and losing them in the more fatal sense. It is tempting to liken Loss of Home to the Desolation, but Usher stresses that there are a great many things that can take your home away. In short, this is the fear that you won’t have somewhere safe and familiar to go at night.

The problem with Usher’s system is its subjectivity. Two humans might look at the same phenomenon and be afraid of it for completely different reasons. There is also a great deal of overlap. Many spider monsters cause both a loss of agency and a loss of life, placing them under two completely separate categories. Usher’s categories are altogether less instinctive than Smirke’s, and any attempt to apply them will inevitably lead to philosophical debate. Because of this, her taxonomy is not used much in the field today. It is still, however, taught at the Usher Foundation, where it is mostly used in theoretical discussion.

**Notes for the Chapter:**

> much as it pains me, i could not work a loss.jpg joke into this chapter


	4. Alternative Two: Object-Subject Model

Unlike the lists of Usher or Smirke, the Object-Subject model can’t be traced back to one original source. It is thought to have originated in the salons of Europe, where it would differ between tellings. The most common surviving version today describes four fears, but there are communities that follow a list of five, three, or even two, though this last has almost died out due to its incredible broadness.

_Fear of being hurt_

This one is self-explanatory.

_Fear of another being hurt_

Of the four, this category is most often dropped from the list. Many are in agreement that the supernatural rarely feeds off of empathetic fear if it can be helped. Still, it must be said that many beings inspire the fear of losing someone you care about, or of innocents being Slaughtered.

_Fear of hurting another_

It might seem unusual that the Fear of hurting people is strong enough to merit a capital F, but as it happens, there are plenty of people who would sooner die than hurt someone, whether advertently or not. This category includes anything that tricks, deceives, or manipulates someone into causing harm.

_Fear of hurting one’s self_

This includes not only the fear of losing one’s mind, but also the fear of sabotaging one’s relationships, the fear of getting sick due to poor hygiene, and the fear of digging so deeply into the occult that one comes to regret it.

Opponents of this model argue that these categories are less like Fears and more like Anxieties. One scholar is quoted as saying, “The thought I might accidentally harm a stranger does not trigger my fight-or-flight response.” Additionally, the first category is broad enough to encompass almost all of supernatural experience. Still, this remains a relatively common taxonomy on the continent. It’s just enough of an organization system that it makes it easier to compare phenomena while still bearing in mind that most phenomena is fundamentally the same.


	5. Alternative Three: The Food Source Model, AKA “Ask the Monsters”

All of the models we’ve looked at so far are helpful enough if you’re organizing an Archive, but not so helpful if you want to fully interact with the world of the supernatural. This is why, in 1937, a Hunter in Australia suggested that we “ask the monsters what they eat”, and classify them accordingly. Setting aside the difficulty in asking monsters anything, this seems like a rather practical way of looking at things. Once you know how someone sustains their existence, you can intuit a great deal about them, such as their powers and personality. The Hunter put forward this list of common food sources, but it can be expanded upon if you need to describe a very specific manner of being.

_Hunting_

_Eating_

_Learning_

_Assimilating_

_Infecting_

_Destroying_

_Killing_

_Controlling_

_Confusing_

_Isolating_

_Smothering_

_Frightening_

At first glance, this doesn’t seem very different from your typical taxonomy, except that a few common categories have been fit under the umbrella action of “Frightening”. However, as stated above, you are what you eat. If you’re going monster-hunting, or monster-loving as the case may be, it helps to know the specific sort of behavior you need to look out for. There is a subtle but significant difference between something that hunts for food and something that feeds on the action of hunting, and understanding that difference could be what saves your life.

Some servants of the Fears find it freeing to think of themselves in terms of their diet. It ascribes agency to the individual instead of to a distant Entity, and it helps people connect with others who share the same eating habits. There are those, however, who find such thinking insulting. To them, this model turns them from manifestations of eldritch power into mere animals. It takes away the sense of purpose that comes from a Fear Entity system, and it leaves little room for Rituals. However, it’s only reasonable that a model designed for Hunting would paint its prey in less than flattering terms.


	6. An Aside on Angus Stacey

We would be remiss if we did not at least acknowledge the rather short-lived taxonomy of the Archivist Angus Stacey. Stacey never completed his work, but anyone in the supernatural community of London in the mid twentieth century would have heard of him. He made a name for himself by going to great lengths to research and test his theories, to the point of getting several assistants killed. Many point to his failure as proof that his thinking was flawed, but with his model remaining unfinished to this day, we will likely never know.

Rather than create a model from scratch, Stacey’s focus was on revising perceived flaws in Smirke’s fourteen. From what can be gathered from his notes, Stacey’ taxonomy differed from Smirke’s in two ways: The Truth and The Stalking. Stacey hypothesized that The Eye and The Stranger, often considered to be antithetical, are in many ways simply two sides of the same coin. He names this entity “The Truth,” and he characterizes it as a fear of information. However, he had trouble accounting for the more scopophobic aspects of The Eye. These, he grouped with The Hunt, naming their combined fear The Stalking.

Stacey suspected that many of the other entities are similarly connected. His notes suggest he was considering a link between The Vast and The Lonely, as well as a more precise way of differentiating between The Desolation and The Slaughter. However, his investigations went no further, as he disappeared early into his research on The Truth. Since his presumed death, no one, at the Magnus Institute or elsewhere, has tried to continue his legacy. It is only Stacey’s own meticulous record-keeping that keeps his life’s work from disappearing entirely.


End file.
